marcos

Army Feb-Dec

Navy Feb-Dec

I scan read 'Georgia' and thought of the wrong Georgia.:) I take it back. Boring choice of relocation.

Fixed.

Go back and read. You've already been proven wrong. Yes it has. Which just happen to be less than for the Typhoon/Rafale. But of course Lockheed didn't state the 'maximum' maximum range did they.:lol: Which it isn't as already shown..... Which it isn't as already shown..... Which it doesn't as already shown. It needs it - that's the bad thing. 0.01m^2 at 90km http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irbis-E F-35 - 0.005m^2 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm 1/R^4 = detection at 75-80km with single source fighter radar. PAK FA uses an updated version of that radar and is said to have an RCS below 0.01m^2 Assuming the F-35 radar is as good, it can detect the PAK FA at 90km but the missile radar can't. All in all both aircraft will get missiles off on closing. As for more powerful, mult-source ground radar, well.... Maybe the F-35 will need some performance after all.

So it's less manoeuvrable than an F-16.

The original goals: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html Not only have the objectives been missed but the threshold has been failed.

What pod is this?

JAGM?

Seriously? You just keep typing? Yes, fuel is important and teh F-35 has more of it but, as already proven, uses more of it. As regards your point on engine efficiency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurojet_EJ200 22g/kNs = 353g/lbf/hr = 0.777lb/lbf.hr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNECMA_M88 0.78lb/lbf.hr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F135 0.886lb/lbf.hr Very big engine gulping a lot of fuel. No worse than most of the competition? Go figure.

I believe they're still re-drawing it.:lol: It shows acceleration figures too which was part of the FG article.

Worse than an F-16 http://forums.airforce.ru/attachments/holodnaya-voina/7591d1183937649-f-16c-acceleration0.gif/ http://forums.airforce.ru/attachments/holodnaya-voina/7667d1184402615-f-16c-sustained-turn0.gif/ and almost as bad as these apparently. http://forums.airforce.ru/attachments/holodnaya-voina/7581d1183834275-f-4e-acceleration.jpg/ http://forums.airforce.ru/attachments/holodnaya-voina/7569d1183809027-f-4e-sustained-turn.gif/

No. The equations were for any manoeuvre but we were just discussing range. You probably can't remember, nevermind. I'm curious. How are you reading that graph because the maximum sustained turn rate there for the F-15 is 9g unless you're looking at 40,000ft only. What was it you said earlier about reading? The Typhoon was built around sustained turn rates at supersonic speed: http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/misc/TechGuideENG.pdf

I don't believe you can run that comparison. The F-16 is a smaller, lighter aircraft (by more than 10,000lbs), it doesn't use as much fuel per km. It's like asking what happens to an F-16's performance if you add a 747's fuel load. And nobody said the F-16 had great range anyway. Besides that, can a 5th gen fighter even claim to be a 5th gen fighter with 3rd gen turning performance? Surely it's actually gen 3.5 or something. Maybe it averages out as gen 4.

Military bow and arrow

Afraid not. Even the A variant is marginally higher, even at empty. At full fuel wing loading it's a lot higher. And the F-16 never had great range but it at least had the TWR to compensate in turns and a smaller fuselage to drag around.

Ummm no. The discussion we were having was on maximum range, therefore we're only talking about subsonic cruise. Are these the same engines that can't sustain a turn above 5g? I've accounted for wings and weight. Two very important issues for a thing known as flight. Yeah... no. It was just plain wrong - no pun intended. Is it now? Please show that mathematically. Cf = Tw/(0.5*Density*v^2) Tw = F/A FOr turbulent flow Cf = 0.582/(Re^0.2) Re = v*chord/kinematic viscosity As you can see the larger chord of a Typhoon/Rafale will actually reduce Cf slightly, mitigating some of the affect of wing area, when Cf is multiplied by it to give the drag component for turbulent skin friction. Now let's look at the fuselage: Page 11 http://faculty.dwc.edu/sadraey/Chapter%203.%20Drag%20Force%20and%20its%20Coefficient.pdf As Cf = 1.327/(Re)^0.5 (laminar flow) Re = Density*V*L/air viscosity Again the Typhoon is longer and the fuselage is smaller too. You can do any calc. you like and the F-35 always comes out on the bottom. No but pecking away at a keyboard like a malnourished pigeon is. Funny thing is, if I'd told you before Flight Global's article that the F-35 would have very poor sustained turn performance based on the same principles, you'd have come up with exactly the same bullshit. I guess I should just wait for Lockheed's range apology rather than arguing. It's intuitively obvious to knowledgeable people that small wings and large weight is bad for range. If you wish to prove an exception, the burden of proof is really on you not me.

So you're ignoring the graph I posted, like everything else. Airliner wings have some elements designed to reduce wave drag but only where they don't compromise the reduction of lift drag. Look at the wing profile of an airliner, it's clearly not designed primarily for the reduction of wave drag. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/f86.htm If you read the Flight Global link, you'd see that the amount of fuel required for the F-35 to even get supersonic is terrible. No it's down to maths, which you apparently don't understand. I've already asked you to use whatever figures you like in the same equations and see what they come out at but the fact is you don't understand the equations, which is why you're still talking. Your early attempt at producing your own equations for lift and drag was also wrong as I pointed out. This tells me that you're not actually capable of understanding any explanation, hence this is a waste of time. The rest of your post is just unsubstantiated drivel and I will waste no time on it. Frankly it looks like Lockheed Martin is just raping the government. That's the difference between a prime defence contractor and a small business. Prime defence contractors think it's their god-given right to make a profit regardless of how incompetently they perform on a given project.